Obama wants to raise taxes on cellphone use

Obama wants to raise taxes on cellphone use
As if the taxes that cellphone users pay each month aren't enough to make you go back to two tin cans and a string, President Obama is looking to raise taxes on cellphone use in order to pay for high-speed internet service in school. The president could ask Congress for the funds, but instead he apparently wants to slow down one of the only sectors of the economy that has been growing steadily over the years. Actually, the president considers Congress to be dysfunctional which is why he is turning to handset users instead of asking Congress to raise the money.

The new program would be called ConnectED and would cost cellphone users about $5 more in additional taxes each year. To show you how overtaxed handset users are, in New York City the average cellphone user pays 10 separate city, state and federal fees and charges each month. And that doesn't include monthly sales tax!

Under the plan, the extra fee would disappear after three years, raising $6 billion. Some of you might not mind, considering that half of the public schools in the U.S. have slower internet than students have at home. The program is expected to connect 99% of America's schools to the "digital age." But there is a worry that once the extra fee is imposed, it won't ever disappear.

source: NYPost



1. msa1988

Posts: 418; Member since: Mar 30, 2010

Here's an idea, NOBama, in stead of raising our taxes, cut back elsewhere! All this man does is spend spend spend! US cell phone bills are already significantly higher than Europe (I pay £15 for 300 minutes 3000 texts and unlimited data), please don't make it worse!

2. vandroid

Posts: 405; Member since: Sep 04, 2012

It's time for a reform

60. AngryAppleCustomer.

Posts: 30; Member since: May 01, 2013

While phone bills are high, 5 dollars wont make a difference, and its for education. Is anyone else really going to complain about $5 per month? [Roflmfao]…

71. DontHateOnS60

Posts: 872; Member since: Apr 20, 2009

I am. Just because the media has beaten into your head that you're an awful person if you don't want to spend more money on education doesn't mean you are. Haven't you heard the old saying, you can't solve every problem by throwing money at it... Look at how much money we've spent on education and what its actually accomplished. Hasn't done a darn thing. I can't wait for this numb nuts to finally leave office so we don't have to deal with this constant, oh we need a tax for this and a tax for that to save the children and the world. F him. Open the books up and show the American people how you've destroyed this country with your wonderful financial decisions. If you made the same ones you'd be out on the street right now unable to make stupid comments on phone blogs.

74. g2a5b0e unregistered

Uhhh...it's $5 a year. Even better, I suppose.

97. T00muchF00D

Posts: 98; Member since: Nov 27, 2011

why would you be ok with paying more in tax? you already pay these men and women to get in there and make things work.....and when they don't.....you just want everyone who isn't you to be ok with paying more?....just because its "only $5"....that's not the point....its all about when will it stop? WE ARE TAXED FOR EVERYTHING....even dying.

99. g2a5b0e unregistered

I didn't say whether or not I was okay with it. I just corrected his statement. If he was okay with paying an extra $5 a month, than clearly he'd be fine with paying $5 a year.

77. donfem

Posts: 708; Member since: Mar 30, 2011

Thanks. A lot of these so called users have little or no understanding. Supporting education is key to progress anywhere in the world. So, government wants to increase tax by $5 per annum and these people are complaining? Dumb I dare say

6. special4u

Posts: 63; Member since: May 22, 2013

US household debt is reducing , and its a good sign. just because ur phone bill is expensive and u started to blame ur president.

10. msa1988

Posts: 418; Member since: Mar 30, 2010

@6 - Really? how about the ~$17 trillion debt? Not sure if you noticed, but that doesn't seem to be going down the slightest bit. To be exact, it's growing at the fastest rate EVER.

45. sum182

Posts: 229; Member since: Nov 19, 2011

The debts only real if you choose the believe in it....-_-

53. Jack58221

Posts: 157; Member since: Feb 23, 2013

it can't be at 17 trillion... he promised it wouldn't go over 14... he wouldn't lie, cheat, falsify, or cover-up anything. that just wouldn't be right. *sarcastic*

19. Sprissy

Posts: 193; Member since: Feb 11, 2012

US household debt reducing??? My household budget hasn't, every utility I have has gone up thanks to Obama and I see no end in sight with the cost of his new health care act which is going to make the cost of my health insurance soar and my paycheck reduce and now he wants to tax my cell phone too.....please Obama please resign and let someone else try and clean up your mess!

28. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 2010

There are some in this thread that want to blame Barry for everything that goes wrong. *sighs*. Bird sh*ts on your car? It's Barry's fault. SMH.

65. Ruckus

Posts: 286; Member since: Oct 20, 2011

Heh I remember when Bush was in office and gas prices would go up. Democrats would blame the **** out of him, but now that Obama is in office they "finally" realize that Presidents don't control OPEC -_-'... On a side note, for some states it will be bad, others not so much. It depends on your state taxes. One example, a good friend of mine moved to West Virginia for a job. He has the same $80 Sprint plan that I do here in Pennsylvania. When all the smoke is cleared my bill after taxes is $90.72 which I think is awful. His on the other hand is less than $83 with taxes. Insane right!? An extra $5 for him is no biggie but an extra $5 from me is harsh.

75. g2a5b0e unregistered

It's $5 a year, not a month.

85. Ruckus

Posts: 286; Member since: Oct 20, 2011

Ah good catch. My bad! Still doesn't change the fact that my state rapes me haha.

8. gazmatic

Posts: 822; Member since: Sep 06, 2012

are you like twelve? the president doesnt and cannot spend anything CONGRESS controls the purse go learn civics 101

11. msa1988

Posts: 418; Member since: Mar 30, 2010

'are you like twelve'? Take a look at your sentence structure, punctuation and verbage before attempting to insult - you look foolish. So you're telling me the President of the United States has no pull on what bills get drafted and pushed through congress? Hmmm...

16. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 2010

"So you're telling me the President of the United States has no pull on what bills get drafted and pushed through congress?" Not when you have one part of Congress not wanting to do anything unless it is what a majority of the majority want. The technical term for the circumstance is tyranny of the minority. Which is why the parliamentary model is looking pretty good at this point.

44. 14545

Posts: 1835; Member since: Nov 22, 2011

Awe, come on Doug. Tyranny of the minority is the fact that the idiots that turn out to the polls and vote for the lesser of two "evils" cause us to pay more in taxes, regulations, etc every year that we don't want to pay. I don't vote, I refuse to support such a failed system that can give us candidate like BO, GW, MR, JM, AG, JK, etc. I mean how is someone like myself to vote for? Neither party is for freedom and liberty, and both what to tax us to oblivion. After all, it was Bush that continued with the idea that Keynesian economics actually work with Failed stimulus 1 & 2, Barry just continued that logic with the omnibus, bailouts, and his stimulus. The only thing that artificially created a bubble after the dot(com) bust was artificially holding interest rates low and creating a housing bubble. Couple that with going from super regulation to no regulation(glass stegal) and you have a recipe for disaster. (I'm for dereg, but you have to do it slowly, not open the flood gates at once. It creates a shock to the system if you don't. As evidenced the last 12-13 years.

46. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 2010

You get what you vote for. Or, in your case, don't vote for.

51. 14545

Posts: 1835; Member since: Nov 22, 2011

No, I don't get what I vote for. I voted from 2004-2010 and not one time did one person that stood for what I believe in get elected. Therefore I am subjected to your tyrannical laws. (IE, taxation without representation) I'm in no way, shape, or form represented in congress, or even lower levels of government within the state. I just get to pay BS taxes for all you votes idiotic needs/wants with no regard for those that actually pay the taxes. Heck, as a family that doesn't intend on EVER having kids I GET TO PAY THE MOST TAXES for you the wonderful POS parents out there. Are you really willing to sit here and tell me that you absolutely think it is right that I should have to pay for all you people chitren when I have no intention of having one myself? How about we let parents pay for their kids high speed interwebs themselves by eliminating the child deduction? Wouldn't that make more sense? After all, the people using this (useless) service will be the ones paying for it. Maybe then parents would be more mindful about what their schools ask for. Just a thought.

100. -box-

Posts: 3991; Member since: Jan 04, 2012

@14545 there are more than two parties to choose from. I haven't voted for either major party in any election I've been able to partake in, unless they're the only two choices on the ballot (like local government). Really, it's time to break the two-party system and support the smaller parties, that way it's less two-sided and folks can choose a party that more-closely aligns with their actual beliefs, ideologies, and takes power away from one particular party over the other(s) as much.

101. 14545

Posts: 1835; Member since: Nov 22, 2011

Box, I agree with you. The last time I voted, I did vote mostly 3rd party. That being said, the hoards of morons that go to the polls to vote for their "team" far outweighs any real support a 3rd party can have. I mean when the people vote for that seem to actually care about what the constitution says, not just when it benefits them, get like 1% or less of the vote. That is a scary thought. Year after year it is the same song and dance and nothing really changes. So until I see a major shift that doesn't include me, then I'm not buying into the system anymore. I am revoking my consent to be governed. Second, I don't really look at it like we have "two sides". Just one side with two splits inside of it. Both sides want major government control. They just differ in what they feel the government should control. I'm for no major government control of any kind.

52. ibap

Posts: 871; Member since: Sep 09, 2009

That's what you get when people type on glass and can't be bothered with punctuation or corrections. He does know how to find the caps key, though.

59. suhas2000

Posts: 27; Member since: Jul 24, 2008

Talking of grammer, it's "verbiage," and yes, when the dysfunctional congress that is run by the RepupubliCONs refuse to cooperate with our president on a single bill what else can expect?

63. 14545

Posts: 1835; Member since: Nov 22, 2011

Yes, it's just the "repuplicons" that are the problem. Lest we forget 08-10 when the "democRATs" couldn't pass a bill and had a super majority. Give me a break and actually educate yourself on the idiots(BOTH SIDES) that run this country.

73. suhas2000

Posts: 27; Member since: Jul 24, 2008

I should not even waste my time replying to someone that goes by a number and not a name, but I'm going to. As far as my education is concerned, I happen to hold a doctorate in physical therapy from an American university, and to to address the second point, during 2008-10, the democratic congress was way too busy cleaning up the royal mess that Dubya left us in, and had much higher approval rating than the current one, fyi.

86. 14545

Posts: 1835; Member since: Nov 22, 2011

What does my choice of interweb anonymity have to do with whether or not you should "reply" to me? Great, you have a PHD and the body, that clearly means you have great economic sense.......Really? That's your argument? How many post graduate economic classes have you taken? I've taken 3 on my way to my BSME. So excuse me if I'm not real impressed just because you have a PHD in something completely unrelated to what we are discussing. I'm sick and tired of hearing this "cleaning up the mess" BS. The only budget we have had that was balanced was under a MIXED executive and legislative branches. PS, CONGRESS(controlled by the left from 06-10) creates the budgets for the president to SIGN. So clearly you have no clue what on earth you are talking Mr. PHD. Next, you are comparing one bad president with another, WHATS YOUR POINT? THEY BOTH SUCK. Do you really not get this? The dollar has lost 75% of it's buying power in the last 15 years, but somehow that makes you think that more government is the answer? And the current president is our savior? Give me a break. Just look around you. You can't even by a happy meal for 5 dollars anymore, but that means the current president is great, right? I mean at what point do you start holding him accountable, like I am sure you did the last? Next, who cares if some straw poll of only people that own LANDLINES think x president is doing "ok" or better? Or worse yet, when they fall below that 50% mark? Should we then be able to request their resignation for not getting the job done? Please think though this logically instead of this stupid "go teams" mentality. Learn to realize when you are voting against your own self interests by VOTING AT ALL. Geez, I feel dumber for just having to explain this.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.